fauxlaw

incompetent people find AI summaries informative.

Google completely failed for me the day it decided to surrender its "brain" to AI. I find AI has a single failure; all it can handle:

AI [at least Google's version] never cites sources, as if it is its own source of all the shyte it expresses. It's why we blithely called it "artificial."

We are uniquely poor at naming our own tech, hence, Douglas Engelbart [Stanford Research Institute], who invented the graphical user interface he called a "mouse," with its tail stuck in its head [which totally maligned mice] - because it was wired, then. Why didn't he just call it a 'guibe?' [pronounced 'gweeb' for "graphical user interface by engelbart?" At least that would have been accurate.

for the sake of...what exactly?

Good question, as I liked the whole of your commentary [#11]

The answer is: answered to linate in my #14

Or how the question was asked.

Who knows how many people were polled.

See the poll   https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26482860/cnn-poll-greenland-venezuela-foreign-policy.pdf.

for answers to both questions

If they really wanted to stop Chinese infiltration they'd stop allowing them to own our property in the usa, especially single family homes, which should be to our people's benefit

[from your #2] Assuming "they" refers to the current administration [the Executive branch], and you should really be more succinct, I will remind you that such matters as owning real property [not just "property," which can be a hammer], is a legislative, not an executive branch matter, by constitutional consideration. See either Congress, please, or your State legislature [because that Document does draw that distinction], considering that, as I understand from your side of the aisle, we have no kings. At least try to be consistent. But I believe that is virtually impossible for progressives.

Being a statistical probability expert during my career [6-sigma black belt], I have issues both with CNN's sponsored poll [conducted by research company SSRS, Jan 9-12, 2026] and your irresponsible addition, "...and the rest must be part of the trump cult?"]. The rest "must not" be anything, my friend, and just represents personal bias. You hate Trump. I get it. But the poll question, itself, is troublesome, which is typical of polling surveys. This one is: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26482860/cnn-poll-greenland-venezuela-foreign-policy.pdf

The question: "Would you (favor) or (oppose) the U.S. attempting to take control of Greenland?"

But "taking control" is a biased term, inferring an unwanted occupation by force. Such an inference does a disservice to potential "samples" [people being polled] Can't use bias-based language in questions - the first rule of a design of experiments [in this case, an opinion poll]. Neither Trump, nor the State Dept, suggest such occupation of Greenland. Rather, the discussion is either territory or statehood, and the general progression in our history is in that order.

I will also tell you that a +/- 3.1% margin of error [m.o.e.] is excessive for accurate polling results. More than +/.-2% is problematic. Have you ever seen a "political" opinion poll of +/.-2%? I'll wager you have not. I have not. There's a reason for that. It's generally an unsuccessful poll, considering that the high majority of polls sponsored by a biased media are designed to agree with their own opinion, which, in CNN's case [I call them Cartoon News Network - yes, I am biased, too], is decidedly anti-Trump.

I will add that progressives tend to use language as if any word can be made to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean, just by making the claim. Thus, useful words like "woke," and "renewable", let alone "boys" and "girls," are made absurdities. "Progressive," itself, is slurred, since it is rooted, and attempts to bloom in a past, gone season called "socialism;" 1848-style, decidedly not progressive, being past tense [like "woke"]. That's not how language works, boys and girls.

As a political conservative, I still have a 39-panel solar array on my roof since 2016; ten years ago as of this coming June. Yes, my energy costs are less then they would have been now, and those savings began the moment my panels were engaged.

However, I am not dillusional about those panels. I am still on the electrical and natural gas grid simply because the panels are useless at night, and have been every night over those ten years; useless whenever the sky is overcast, and useless because they do not supply any energy to my furnace nor kitchen cook top.

Thus my question: How is green energy "renewable" anymore than oil is, because my truck, and my wife's car, can function 24/7, and have for much longer than the solar panel installation, and they continue to be a readily available energy source 24/7 because their energy and lubrication supply is naturally available in the past, present, and for the foreseeable future, therefore RENEWABLE because the natural Earth process producing it did not ever shut off as greenies stupidly, but patently incorrectly claim. Who or what shut it off, since the product did not stop being produced with the death of dinosaurs, living organisms, the nature of which did not die with them? Anyone?

My grandfather, a medical doctor, who died in 1972, 18 years following the award of the Nobel Prize to Drs. Crick and Watson for their watershed discovery of the nature and purpose of DNA: "This stuff in each or our cells is fragile, and I think is suspect to mutation should harmful chemistry in our bodies have access to them."

My father, a medical doctor and hospital administrator, who died in 2000, 46 years in to our understanding of DNA: "The telomeres that act as shoelace cap protectors on shoelaces that similarly protect the DNA molecule are demonstrated to breakdown an we age, and are demonstrated to do so earlier than expected with consumption of harmful substances, particularly the n that consumption occurs from early in life."

My older brother, a medical doctor, still living at 83, on the numerous studies conduct4ed over the 72 years since we continue to discover how DNA should function: "Harvard Medical School, my alma mater, has found by groundbreaking study of roughly 40M patients, all female, that consumption of harmful substances, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and excessive salt and sugar, while pregnant, can begin to affect not just their own DNA duplicative function of intended accuracy, but also can disruptive fetal development of cell nuclei my mutative effect."

I had the privilege of meeting Dr. James Watson, DNA-driven Nobel Prize winner of 1954, at UCLA, my alma mater, in 1966, one year prior to my H.S. graduation, at a lecture he conducted there on his view of the future of DNA research, and touched on its high potential for harmful mutation causing unknown results by our sloppy attitude of nutrition, but also the high potential for improving the human condition by further DNA research.

Fair enough? Yeah, pie hole verbiage, indeed. Happens to be valid.

If I were Catholic or Protertant Christian, I might agree that would have been a "conditioned theist" sermon, through I disagree that they are any more conditioned than you are. That applicative description is an agnostic view, at best, and I keep that in mind. Any criticism you have of true Christianity is a jaded dismissal. So be it if that is your schtick.

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not is a fool; shun him.

He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a child; teach him.

He who knows, and knows not he knows is asleep; wake him.

He who knows, and knows he knows is wise; follow him.

I think this is from Khalil Gibran's "The Prophet."

Your #11 is an excess that ignores that there's a lot of junk out there we consume by more than the pie hole, but that, included, act as direct mutagens that damage DNA, with results you exhaustively detail. A cleaner diet, and at that, avoiding other consumptive means than the pie hole, would limit those disastrous effects. We literally are "what we 'eat.'"

By your definition of "conditioned theist," no, that is not descriptive of me, at all. I am not a typical Catholic or Protestant, as both embrace the idea of original sin, which I believe is an absolute lie as it denies the atonement of Christ as effective to derrail that idea. Why else the atonement but to leave us responsible only for our own sins and not those of parents of any generation, including Adam & Eve. I accept God and Christ as perfect, physical, immoral beings, not merely as spirits. Mortal flesh is corrupt, but not immortal. I do not accept that the priesthood endured as a spiritual power beyond the first century C.E., but had to be restored to Earth due to the great apostasy that began in the generation of Christ. it did not endure from Peter, and I do not accept the he personifies "the rock" ofd the church. Read correctly, that discussion in Matthew 16, beginning with verse 15 when Jesus asked his apostles, "Whom say ye that I sm?" Peter replies, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." [v 16]. Jesus tells Peter flesh and blood did not reveal that knowledge to Peter, but the Father. Jesus acknowledges peter's name, but when read in Greek, his following is not that Peter is the rock, but revelation from God, and it is that upon which the church is built. Most of Christianity doesn't get it. The problem with the apostasy is that revelation stopped.

Facts? From Google? As if every hit has factual, dependable, scholastic data?

Don't make me laugh, because that is about as dependable as a rubber crutch, and right now, recovering from knee surgery to replace the entire joint, that is an important consideration. Google was better, but not absolutely dependable, before it handed the data collection to AI, which I trust less than Google. I come from an age when research meant a day at the brick/mortar library, and that was somewhat problematic even then.

or speeds up the process

Or, it could slow down the process. That's a presumption due to the nature of evolution being a negative or positive result [extinction or survival] since A.I., itself, is subject to evolution by it's own self-description.

wouldn't that make it pie?

It might be a planet.

Its called inductive to deductive reasoning.

Your attempted logic in your post #11 is flawed. It is neither inductive nor deductive reasoning and the whole is not at all reasonable because P1 is not true, and neither is P2. P1 dictates that all people are addicted to smoking. Non-smokers [I never have] cannot be addicted, particularly when not frequenting exposure to second-hand smoke, yet it is still possible to have lung cancer [Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana, was an example]. P2 dictates that one observed person did not get addicted. There are more non-smokers observed than one, so P2 is also false. Inductive reasoning is specific-to-general logic. Deduction is general-to-specific logic. Your argument sequence in #11 is neither inductive not deductive; it's nonsense. You appear to be trying to describe the modal ontological argument [MOA], based upon S5 modal logic, which is distinguished by necessity, impossibility, and contingency as necessary factors, but you did not go there, at all.

Comparing the USA medical costs to other countries is almost a useless comparison, unless you use per capita calculation, which you did not do. We are the third highest population in the world, my friend, behind only India and China, neither of which have stellar healthcare. You're comparing us to countries that generally have less than 15% of our population. So, yes, our costs are more. And, though you disregard it, insurance costs have risen exponentially compared to real, direct medical costs; one reason why Obamacare has failed miserably, because it was not designed for our population, but patterned after European populations, socialist, or not. And, our diet is terrible compared to many countries. We just stuff too much junk in the piehole. That correction, alone, would take a lot of cost out of medical care, and a lot of the reason we die prematurely.

The crowd is often the best measure of performance success. Should I dub you "Crooner?"

Wow!

Senator Josh Hawley [R-MO], just questioned a female medical doctor in a Senate hearing on the trans issues in women's sports and asked her a basic yes/no question: "Can a man get pregnant?"

Doctor's response: "That's a politically-charged question."

Hawley: "No, yes/no questions are designed to reveal truth."

It was a simple yes/no question, and though I have not been to medical school, although I'm in a 4-generation family in the medical profession, my grandfather, father, brother, and my daughter, and I do medical illustrations as a freelance artist, I know the answer to the question, apparently unlike this "doctor;" the answer is a resounding NO.

The difference and the beauty of Illustrator is that it allows me to make horrible mistakes, but when used correctly, I do not need A.I. to "fix." Therefore, I am the artist, not A.I. - just the way it should be. It's called "artificial" for a reason. Poorly named, but accurate enough, anyway, and that's just more human error at work.

Yes, but both environment and evolution, all by themselves without our intervention, have variables that enhance and destroy. We must think better than random chance of outcome and design systems that ultimately can, and do function only for appropriate outcomes. Since each female and male have alternative systems, and those systems used properly have predictable results when we do not introduce random theory into the works, such as cutting off our balls and women tear out their ovaries, or we put inappropriate "food" into our pieholes to screw with our natural chemistry, things tend to work out as designed. Forcing trans is not a natural order of things, pure and simple, since the brain has nothing to do with determining gender. That happens at conception, period.

Certainly, Og and Ug were all about that, but then along came Ziggy, to decide if Og was robbing Ug, or vice versa, and it really was a larger question because we don't really know what Ziggy's motivation was in trying to play cop. Was he merely thinking he could rob from both, and set himself up as administrator? That's politics, and why politics alone should not rule the world.

I still question whether we actually need 8 billion players.

in that argument, "need" derives its assumed power on the basis of assuming we have limited resources. I maintain our resources are not limited; therefore, "need" does not impose limitation on population. or, rather, our stupid, but willful imposition of population packing in a heavily urban environment. We just do not "need" to live on top of one another, like rats, when 8B of us can occupy nearly 2 acres, each, and not occupy more than 39% of the landmass we have.

why would [God] need us to sort out the universe?

Simple, and two-fold answer:

1. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean he is compelled to act omnipotently 100% of the time. Do you always use all the power you have? No, you don't. Neither must he.
2. As #1 is true, we do not need God to do everything for us, and, in fact, he expects us to do more than we think we can simply because we exist to grow and progress to be more tomorrow than we are today to ultimately, in a glorious future day, become as God is now, while he continnues to progress further, himself. It's called eternal progression, and that is the road we're supposed to be on. Of course, we have the choice to be lazy and eternally dependent, but that's just entitlement, and God is not about that, at all, even though the universe is populated by such. Satan and his minions are members of that group, and they are going nowhere. We are not only here to populate Earth in mortality, but to populate stars in immortality. And we do that with eternally available resources by organization [some call it creation] of chaotic material and energy into orderly material and energy. It is the nature of God to duplicate himself by us, and us to duplicate ourselves by the same eternal progression,. That means God has a God to whom he owes alligiance, and that is an eternal cycle. it has always been so, and will always be so. That's what eternity is, forward, and back. Difficult for the finite mind to wrap itself around that, but that's the challenge. Go.

Did you happen to sing the bass part - that was really awesome. In high school, I participated in a barbershop quartet competition in '66 among our region's high schools [about a dozen high schools in West L.A.]. I was the bass of the group. We sang three selections, beginning with Duke of Earl [not typical barber shop fare, but the other two were, both from "The Music Man"], and took 1st place.

Animals do this --as does human animal--- with camouflage.

Camouflage is the French word, spelled the same [we Anglophones ripped it it from French], means, primarily, concealment, but also means enhancement, as in use of stage [and street] make-up. So, while many animals of the world conceal, such as leopard spots, or bird feathers, some animals, like the poison dart frogs, use the enhancement feature: bright colors to attract, not conceal, because the poison they carry is on the skin, merely to be touched, even by humans, to kill their aggressors, and not to conceal.

Don't know about politics, because that is, at best, poor science. Science is hung on the hook of decorum, if nothing else, whereas politics has always been a vulgar pseudo-science [still is]. Latin's slur was "cunnus," so these have generally always been on the perimeter, and not the core of science. However, "vagina," also a latin root, was, first, our equivalent word "sheath," whereas Latin's "vagina," descriptive of the female body, was "vuvla," which ended up being translated to English, in medieval time, female "parts to be ashamed of" when the Church [the second estate] made all such matters shameful [though undercover priestly and nunnerly recreation], thus, Popes, such as Julius II [Giulliano della Rovere], who had children, including this comely lass, Felice della Rovere, and commissioned Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes.

As if there is not ritual in such mundane human activity as conducting business transactions and presentation of works of art, let alone development of educational institutions and all its cloth-and-daggers.

Or even the military, Sergeant. Talk about ritual! Hooyah!

your not considering that most of the Earth is ocean, not land.

No, I am not ignorant of the fact that water exceeds land mass on Earth, and there is purpose in that because fresh water is a basic life requirement, not just for man. We have the technology to make fresh water from ocean water, or other water that cannot be called "fresh," so, its abundance was always necessary and is necessary for life on other planets in greater abundance than land for supporting a population. And we do and have proven that we can survive for long periods underwater - demonstrated at least by Jacques Cousteau, whom I met in France in 1969 and who had underwater labs and living spaces on the Mediterranean offshore Marseille about 30m deep and later Nice about 100m deep.

of what use are 8 billion people, that demand far more than just food and water.

Well, I happen to think humanity is the root of innovation because few other living species on Earth have high tech, which has, all things considered, improved life expectancy, let alone created A.I. We are of tremendous value to ourselves.

Isn't unchecked species proliferation, the real greed you speak.

No, it isn't. Greed is the effort of those who can to purposefully limit human proliferation to the end that "more for me" is the desired result. One of the three fundamental sins, from which all others derive, is possession. The other two are pride and power. You willl note that it was just these three sins boy which Satan tempted Christ, and failed. Sin is the deliberate attempt to limit the fundamental right of man to exist, thrive, and produce. All living organisms naturally seek reproduction, and only unnaturally pursue its limitation.

98% of my total productive computing is satisfied by two apps: Adobe Illustrator and Apple Pages; illustration and wordsmithing, the two activities I engage at any hour of the day or night by personal choice. Both were designed specific to Mac and function with far more features than either do in Windows; a platform for which neither was originally created. I have other apps, but their percentage of use is minimal. I play no game on my Mac but solitaire. Gaming just isn't my schtick, particularly here, sorry.